I recently read an interesting article on how the zombie genre was born from terrifying rabies outbreaks that once afflicted major cities like Paris, where you could be walking down an alley, get attacked by a rabid animal, and get turned into a mindless, vicious monster. It made sense.

Click to expand...

I've heard the same. It does make a lot of sense. The way zombification and rabies work are too similar to be a coincidence.

I recently read an interesting article on how the zombie genre was born from terrifying rabies outbreaks that once afflicted major cities like Paris, where you could be walking down an alley, get attacked by a rabid animal, and get turned into a mindless, vicious monster. It made sense.

Click to expand...

I've heard the same. It does make a lot of sense. The way zombification and rabies work are too similar to be a coincidence.

Click to expand...

Actually, Zombie mythology in general comes from certain voodoo legends. It's a spin on the Christian revelation mythology: on the day when God resurrects the dead from their graves, there comes a reckoning where the resurrected slaves rise up and seek revenge for being mistreated by their former masters. That's why the ORIGINAL zombie movies and folklore always involve the "undead" rising from their graves and seeking mayhem; this was originally a dig against slave owners, basically warning them "You'll get yours, buddy!"

Morphing into the "bite you/rabbid creature!" thing probably does derive from rabies panic, but that's really just a new spin on a 300 year old myth (much like sparkly vampires and witches that don't have sex with Satan).

Well that would've meshed with the European paintings of skeleton armies eating the living (that famously graced a bunch of Black Sabbath album covers), so the return of the hungry dead had been a theme for a while. As best I can remember, Night of the Living Dead didn't even have the second element of the theme, that getting bitten turns you into a zombie, just that the dead rise from the grave and start eating brains.

This of course applies to the SLS, which had been killed and buried as Ares, which had been killed and buried countless times as Shuttle-C variants, and had been killed as and buried as dozens of Saturn derived variants. Yet it walks again, eating all the funding, stalking all the NASA centers for the brains of any engineers not yet assigned to it. It was even born in a Senate demand that we find a way to re=use bodies instead of laying them off.

One thing that I think few people take seriously enough regarding technological development is the costs involved. I could easily see us going through a sustained period of essentially stagnation in terms of technology simply because we have more pressing needs for what funding we have.

Right now, NASA should be concerning itself with watching for Earth-Impactor asteroids, and supporting sattelite launches, and that's it. NO space-stations, no Mars probes, no shuttles, etc, which have never proven out to be to our benefit.

Space has nothing we need if we just get our own house in order. It will still be there when that is accomplished and we have the luxury of wasting money on "we'd like to" stuff instead of "we have to" stuff.

Space has nothing we need if we just get our own house in order. It will still be there when that is accomplished and we have the luxury of wasting money on "we'd like to" stuff instead of "we have to" stuff.

Click to expand...

1) We will pretty much never get our "house" in order, so waiting for that day is a waste of time.

2) Throughout history, industrial powers have always -- repeat, ALWAYS -- expanded into new environments as a way to solve their domestic economic troubles. This strategy has the threefold advantage of reliving population pressure (especially the underclass, who can be cheaply exported to the frontier), providing access to new resources, and stimulating growth in new technologies and new industry needed to support the colonization efforts.

The second point bears repeating, because lots of people forget this: colonization is expensive and time consuming, but it pays HUGE dividends economically. Colonization of space is the kind of operation that, once it begins, will invigorate mankind's combined industrial capacity for at least a century.

The americas have nothing we need if we just get our own house in order. It will still be there when that is accomplished and we have the luxury of wasting money on "we'd like to" stuff instead of "we have to" stuff.

Click to expand...

Imagine where the world would be if this were the majority opinion in europe for the last 600 years.

You may also recall that Von Braun did the exact same thing when he worked for Hitler. His designs for what eventually became the Saturn-V dated back to the original V-2 rocket program.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that Medaris got the Saturn IB test stand built. He had to fudge in that "it wasn't really needed for Redstone (replaced by pershing) but in house capability is a good thing. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but in this week's Av Week and Space Oct 22, 2012, page 8), we see a plea for the services own Research Development Test and Evaluation facilities as being superior in knowing their own branch's respective needs. "The highly risk averse, profit centered industry cannot match this capability."

In the other op-ed below this which lauds space privatization as a model to fix F-35, even there the writer affirms that stealthy aircraft make poor carpet bombers. Each branch of the service had to make do with F-35. In house specialty is a must. To wit:

I don't see SLS surviving the downselect process, or really, even being part of it in any meaningful way.

Click to expand...

Now that's where you are wrong. If I were Musk, I would let the current wave of SLS-enabling contracts go on, see advances made in wider tanks, friction stir, and Dynetics attempt to make larger engines. Then I would learn from them for my MCT program so avoid duplication of effort. Musk learned from early rocket programs, so had a head start. SLS will play a part in general rocket-building so Musk won't have to. This actually means his MCT becomes more likely.

Now I don't know if these figures are accurate, but they open up modularity even greater than RLA:

A 4 MCT Falcon X on the other hand would enable far bigger fairings and a much larger Heavy variant. Big enough in fact it has room for error setting 50 mt down on the martian surface. I've assumed Falcon Heavy-like LEO:Mars ratios for payloads. Methane may however allow even bigger Mars payloads due to higher Isp.

You see you wouldn't need a single-stick core with 300 mt of launch capacity. A 4-MCT Falcon X would be much more commercially viable and you could simply use modularity to scale the payloads from 67-450 mt as needed.

Even the space shuttle never flew the military missions it was explicitly designed for; what makes you think the Air Force is going to pull a 70 ton payload out of their asses just because an HLV happens to exist somewhere?

Just remember, the Marines pushed for SUSTAIN but until Falcon Heavy, they really didn't have enough payload to have something fly out and extract troops. Which is why Dream Chaser might be scaled up to go atop Falcon heavy to where it may even have self-ferry capability: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=17152

Now in terms of depots, I think even the H-2 upper stage, which is to be used right away mind you, had a problem with boil-off as per Av Week. This is due to Japans higher latitude launching point. I'll have to get back to you on that.

The technology to make those kinds of platforms feasible is still in its infancy and maturing very VERY slowly, and this at a time when the types of adversaries that would make such a system useful have either vanished or were never in conflict with us in the first place.

I didn't forget. It's just irrelevant to what we're talking about (although it's worth mentioning that the Saturn-IB was itself derived from the Redstones).

In the other op-ed below this which lauds space privatization as a model to fix F-35, even there the writer affirms that stealthy aircraft make poor carpet bombers.

Click to expand...

And if carpet bombing was still a valid tactic in the age of GPS-guided bombs, that would mean something.

If I were Musk, I would let the current wave of SLS-enabling contracts go on, see advances made in wider tanks, friction stir, and Dynetics attempt to make larger engines. Then I would learn from them for my MCT program so avoid duplication of effort.

Click to expand...

Weren't you JUST talking about the advantages of in-house capability? Why in the hell would Elon Musk wait for NASA technology to produce new technical innovations when he's got his OWN rockets to learn from and experiment with new designs?

Musk learned from early rocket programs, so had a head start.

Click to expand...

He learned a hell of a lot more from his OWN rocket program and their experiences with the Falcon 1. This isn't entry level rocket science anymore; Elon Musk is playing in the same league as NASA at this point. If anything, NASA should be learning from SpaceX.

SLS will play a part in general rocket-building

Click to expand...

No it won't. The underlying technologies are thirty years old; anything Musk stands to learn from the SLS could be just as easily determined by studying the STS.

Again, it is shroud diameter that limits certain missions. Space based radar was a real desire. Over at nasaspaceflight.com, their EELV hack Jim lied about Space based Radar, and I caught him on it

Just remember, the Marines pushed for SUSTAIN but until Falcon Heavy, they really didn't have enough payload to have something fly out and extract troops.

Click to expand...

No version -- I repeat, no version -- of SUSTAIN involved using a spacecraft to EXTRACT troops. The concept called for the use of a suborbital spacecraft similar to SpaceShipOne or even dreamchaser as a rapid action delivery system, with troops either landing or air dropping over the target zone. The only significant variation on this was a study from 2005 which implied that small drop capsules could be used to deliver the troops via propulsive landing (kinda like the ODSTs from Halo). Every version of the concept implies extraction by conventional means, usually by helicopter.

The technology to make those kinds of platforms feasible is still in its infancy and maturing very VERY slowly, and this at a time when the types of adversaries that would make such a system useful have either vanished or were never in conflict with us in the first place.

Click to expand...

Now we are talking about more limited space based systems.

Click to expand...

No, we're talking about the ONLY space based systems that have ever been developed. None of them are even remotely feasible, and even the best of them aren't even theoretically as effective as the land/sea bast ABMs currently in service.

It's also kind of funny you name-dropping Medaris at a time like this. It was Medaris who figured out that the Saturn-I was about to be cancelled in favor of a totally hypothetical Titan kitbash being shopped around by the Air Force. That particular proposal was supported by flimsy, overly-optimistic estimates and some technical boasts so laughable they could only have been propaganda. That is exactly the dynamic right now between Falcon 9 and SLS: we know for a fact that the F9 can be evolved into a heavy lift system (the Falcon Heavy) which would more than suffice for the MPCV and anything else NASA has planned in the immediate future.

In house development made sense in the 60s when NASA was in a tight spot depending on outside providers to develop their launch systems. That has long since ceased to be an issue; outside providers now have the ONLY working launch systems in America, and have taken much of the initiative in future development of new systems. NASA is no longer the leading agency in spaceflight, and even the SLS -- IF it ever flies -- will be too little too late.

From what I understand he does payload integration. Now payloads often have pins in them that are to be removed after launch. I saw sometime ago, a photo of a sat with a tagged pin left in it that also had some black bands around the solar panels. You have to remove those too, or you will have problems as USA-193 did, leading to its shoot-down.

A real jerk, yes, but still it is good to see passion in the real-space community. I enjoy our battles here, and despite any personal animosity--it proves that people in the business do care about spaceflight, no matter what they champion.

Weren't you JUST talking about the advantages of in-house capability? Why in the hell would Elon Musk wait for NASA technology to produce new technical innovations when he's got his OWN rockets to learn from and experiment with new designs?

Click to expand...

Musk didn't invent the rocket mind you. The point I am making is that--apart from Ariane 6, you are seeing folks all over the planet increase LV size beyond what comsats demand. Which is a good thing. Now lets say we were to put everyone in SLS out of work. That would hurt infrastructure and have less expertise to draw from. I hate that the orbiter folks got the axe--something that wouldn't have happened had we gone the modular Energiya route. If Musk and the alt.spacers got other in-house capabilities destroyed--it also lessons competition. What I want--that you call pork is a robust in-house infrastructure of public as well as private institutions. That's something libertarians can't see because of their Ayn Rand blinders.

Now Sustain was going to be an EELV launched vehicle, so it stands to reason that something a bit bigger could be launched via falcon that would be large enough to sport turbojets and have some kind of return capability. The Buran analog and the original Buran concept wouldn't have come back dead-stick--and they had huge payload bays sustain would not have to have. Here is where Dream Chaser needs to focus--on contacting the folks behind HOT EAGLE because they are closer to it than the X-37/X-40 folks who are only playing with automated spaceplanes that were intended to be OSP demonstrators originally

It's also kind of funny you name-dropping Medaris at a time like this. It was Medaris who figured out that the Saturn-I was about to be cancelled in favor of a totally hypothetical Titan kitbash being shopped around by the Air Force.

Click to expand...

They said it was cheaper. Now Jim from NASAspaceflight maintains that to this day, even though Titan IV wound up costing the same as a moon-shot counting the payload--and ended up with about the same lift capability that Saturn IB had to begin with. But Jim does payload processing for ULA, which is Air Force, so you can expect him to be biased.

In house development made sense in the 60s when NASA was in a tight spot

Click to expand...

Arsenal method still makes sense both in the public and private world for the same reason. More and more people from all walks are developing vehicles--more now than since the 50s-60s. I think this is a good thing to have a lot of approaches--and I hope they all see service. Probably not--but it is a good thing for its own sake to have a lot of aerospace folks employed and staying busy from which private companies must draw. Its not all about economics--that is what I am trying to stress.

Even the EELV people are innovating with dual payloads now, as per page 36 of the Oct 22, 2012 issue of AV week.. It was on page 30 of the Oct 15 issue of the same year that we learn that the second stage of H-IIA will stay with the sat-load for a 5 hr coast, ans may need a white reflective coating to minimize hydrogen evaporation, so I imagine a depot will be more challenging.

A real jerk, yes, but still it is good to see passion in the real-space community.

Click to expand...

The difference between you and Jim? Experience. I don't think I've ever read a statement from him that turned out to be wrong. He knows from where he speaks, unlike a lot of "armchair" space experts. And contrary to what you believe, in those threads you linked of finding an error with what he said, he wiped the floor with you there.

so I imagine a depot will be more challenging.

Click to expand...

More challenging? yes. But remember a second stage is not a depot. Different design criteria.

I guess we remember things differently. Thankfully there are HLLV advocates there, and he didn't know what he was talking about in terms of space-based radar, and when I cited Space News, he attacked them as a news organization. He went after Musk too. Jim isn't the only one with experience. Lots of folks at MSFC have it too--and he and other people look to be trying to put them out of work.

I guess we remember things differently. Thankfully there are HLLV advocates there, and he didn't know what he was talking about in terms of space-based radar, and when I cited Space News, he attacked them as a news organization. He went after Musk too. Jim isn't the only one with experience. Lots of folks at MSFC have it too--and he and other people look to be trying to put them out of work.

Weren't you JUST talking about the advantages of in-house capability? Why in the hell would Elon Musk wait for NASA technology to produce new technical innovations when he's got his OWN rockets to learn from and experiment with new designs?

Click to expand...

Musk didn't invent the rocket mind you. The point I am making is that--apart from Ariane 6, you are seeing folks all over the planet increase LV size beyond what comsats demand.

Click to expand...

But not by much, and they're not in much of a hurry either.

Now lets say we were to put everyone in SLS out of work. That would hurt infrastructure and have less expertise to draw from.

Click to expand...

WHAT infrastructure? SLS isn't part of any mature spaceflight architecture that currently exists, comsats or otherwise. The only spaceflight system that will ever use it is the MPCV, which doesn't actually NEED it and can just as easily fly on an EELV. The "expertise" we're drawing from is also highly specialized in STS-style systems; the open secret in the KSC "save those jobs!" debate is that none of the KSC workforce is really employable anywhere else because they're trained on technologies and techniques that are so woefully obsolete that nobody else in the industry still uses them.

If Musk and the alt.spacers got other in-house capabilities destroyed--it also lessons competition.

Click to expand...

Only between the private sector and the NASA shops... but then, there wouldn't BE any competition in the first place if the private sector hadn't stepped in with an alternative.

OTOH, there is now competition between SpaceX, Sierra Nevada and Blue Origins for commercial crew, as well as between SpaceX and Orbital Sciences and (indirectly) the Europeans and the Japanese for cargo services. Killing off NASA's in-house capability hardly eliminates competition, but funneling the money that would normally be spent on an overpriced/overengineered launch system into a spaceflight industry could make that competition a lot more productive for NASA.

What I want--that you call pork is a robust in-house infrastructure of public as well as private institutions. That's something libertarians can't see because of their Ayn Rand blinders.

Click to expand...

1) SLS isn't robust, nor is it "infrastructure." It was designed to provide JOBS, not space launch capability.

2) As you continue to cast about trying to figure out just who it is who opposes the SLS, you now implicitly begin to blame Libertarians/Randians. Evidently, you cannot grasp the idea that many people are looking at the same facts and the same history you are and reaching entirely different conclusions, based NOT on ideology, NOT on propaganda, NOT on op eds in popsci magazines, but on honest-to-god critical thinking.

There are new wrinkles to the old tech.

Click to expand...

And there is also new tech. Take your pick (Elon already has).

You might have forgotten that STS was to have a form of self-ferry early on

Click to expand...

STS has nothing whatsoever to do with SUSTAIN.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Now Sustain was going to be an EELV launched vehicle, so it stands to reason that something a bit bigger could be launched via falcon that would be large enough...

Click to expand...

The Falcon wasn't even a design concept when SUSTAIN was being studied. And again, self-ferry capability has NEVER EVER been part of any of the SUSTAIN proposals.

It's also kind of funny you name-dropping Medaris at a time like this. It was Medaris who figured out that the Saturn-I was about to be cancelled in favor of a totally hypothetical Titan kitbash being shopped around by the Air Force.

Click to expand...

They said it was cheaper.

Click to expand...

And they were bullshitting.

Just like the politicians who favor the SLS are bullshitting when they suggest the system will be either on time or on cost, and they're shoveling it by the heapful if they suggest it will do BOTH.

Now Jim from NASAspaceflight...

Click to expand...

Isn't here. Irrelevant point is irrelevant.

Arsenal method still makes sense both in the public and private world for the same reason. More and more people from all walks are developing vehicles--more now than since the 50s-60s. I think this is a good thing to have a lot of approaches--and I hope they all see service.

Click to expand...

I agree. And all things being equal, the 40 billion dollars NASA intends to spend developing the SLS would be better spent purchasing large numbers of Falcon 9s and man-rated EELVs. That investment would pay off much larger dividends in the long run, since the Falcon Heavy would provide the heavy lift capability they need for BEO missions -- IF they ever develop them -- while at the same time stimulating development into a Falcon Superheavy once SpaceX parlays their experience with the Merlin into the MCT and/or reusable F9 Grasshopper. I also like multiple providers; man-rating the Atlas or the Delta-IV Heavy is a good secondary system (I am not a huge fan of the D-IVH but it has a very good operational record and doesn't rely on Russian engines).

Any of which would be preferable to the SLS: they provide launch capability for any spacecraft NASA has in service (MPCVs or Dragons and Dreamchasers purchased from SpaceX and Sierre Nevada) and continued use makes those launchers evolvable into the kind of heavy lift vehicles NASA has been dabbling with for BEO missions, especially since one of those providers is ALREADY working on a design that is both cheaper and more efficient than the SLS.

In short, SLS is the OPPOSITE of the arsenal method. SLS is the same kind of crony capitalism "sole-source-no-bid-cost-plus" style defense contract that gave us the F-35.

Its not all about economics--that is what I am trying to stress.

Click to expand...

When it comes to the SLS, it's all about POLITICS, and that is what I am saying.

But I'm also taking the long view of this and realizing that politics, unlike economics, isn't going to colonize space. Industry is going to do that, and the sooner we put them on the front lines of this venture, the sooner we'll start to get REAL work done in space.

No, because DIRECT ultimately got their case heard by appealing to Kay Bailey Hutchinson's sense of political expedience. "Oh, you DO want to use the same aerospace contractors for your rocket design? Well, why didn't you just say so?"

2) As you continue to cast about trying to figure out just who it is who opposes the SLS, you now implicitly begin to blame Libertarians/Randians. Evidently, you cannot grasp the idea that many people are looking at the same facts and the same history you are and reaching entirely different conclusions, based NOT on ideology, NOT on propaganda, NOT on op eds in popsci magazines, but on honest-to-god critical thinking.

Click to expand...

Hey, am I a Randian if Rand Simberg asked me to be a coblogger? He makes videos with those cute little bear characters that diss the SLS. We're still not sure what they are, maybe some kind of ring-tailed panda.